Essential Components of a Successful Bilingual Program

Esmeralda M. Collazo
EDUC 5322Curriculum Design, Assessment, and Evaluation
Professor Dr. Tonya Knowlton
East Texas Baptist University

October 27, 2016

Collazo 2

Introduction: Need for Bilingual Practices and Models

With the great number of English language learners in U.S. school system and this
number continuously growing, it is vital that schools implement effective language programs.
The National Center for Education Statistics stated, The percentage of public school students in
the United States who were English language learners was higher in school year 201314 (9.3
percent, or an estimated 4.5 million students) than in 200304 (8.8 percent, or an estimated 4.2
million students) (Education, 2015, p. 1). The Every Student Succeeds Act states that almost 10
percent the student population are English language learners and in some areas the population is
higher (Education D. o., 2016, p. 3).
The purpose of this literature review is to identify and examine the essential components
of a successful bilingual program. It will also address the following questions: What is bilingual
education? What are the different bilingual education models and what are the characteristics
associated with each? Which model is the most effective for English language learners? What are
some issues in implementation? What are the essential components of a successful bilingual
program? The approach used to conduct this literature review was to analyze eight scholarly
articles as well as the new guidelines set by the ESSA.
What is bilingual education?
The National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) refers to bilingual education
as classroom methods that use the native languages of English language learners (ELLs) for
instruction (National Association for Bilingual Education, 2015). Another definition widely used
is, bilingual education is instruction in two languages and the use of those two languages as
mediums of instruction for any part, or all, of the school curriculum (Anderson, Boyer, &
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1970) (Center, 2010, p. 2). Though there are

Collazo 3

many programs that have Ells in them and are teaching them to acquire English, in order for any
program to be considered a bilingual program it must have both content and delivery in two
languages (Center, 2010, p. 2).
Models
There are three models of bilingual education which are transitional, maintenance, and
enrichment (Center, 2010, p. 3) (Rivera, 2002). The purpose of transitional models is to teach
students English as quickly as possible and once students have learned English, usually within a
specific time limit, to ensure that students are exited or mainstreamed into regular English-only
classes (Rivera, 2002). The end goal is to leave behind the students first language and develop
the students second language and academic skills (Center, 2010, p. 3). Transitional bilingual
education programs include the following examples: early-exit transitional bilingual education,
late-exit transitional bilingual education, English as a second language pull-out, and one-year
structured English immersion (Rivera, 2002, p. 2). This type of model usually begins in
Kindergarten and stops teaching in the students native language after 1-2 years. Transitional
bilingual programs are bilingual only at first, but the aim is clearly not bilingualism or bi-literacy
(Center, 2010, p. 3). Maintenance models, on the other hand, do not usually have a specific time
limit (Rivera, 2002, p. 2). In this model students receive instruction in academic subject areas in
the students native language. The aim is bilingualism, but the native language is not developed
or extended. (Center, 2010, p. 3). Enrichment models are very similar to maintenance models in
that the end goal is bilingualism. (Center, 2010). However, the goals are more than just linguistic.
They work towards ensuring students appreciate cultural pluralism and to promote cross-cultural
understandings. (Rivera, 2002, p. 2). Examples of enrichment programs include: two-way or
dual-language models where two languages are used in instruction (Rivera, 2002, p. 2)

Collazo 4

Most effective Model

Donna Christian, Wayne P. Thomas, Virginia P. Collier, and many other scholars agree
that the enrichment model, two- way/dual program, works best for language minority students.
The reason this model is highly successful is because they promote a high degree of student
involvement, contextualized classroom discourse, and value students culture (Alnais, Iliana and
Rodriguez M.A, 2008, p. 317).Emerging results from program evaluations around the country
point clearly to their effectiveness in promoting academic achievement for minority and majority
students, along with high levels of bilingual proficiency for both groups (Christina, 1994, p.
16). Many states with high population levels of ELLs have active dual-language programs that
benefit all students (Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P, 2003, p. 61) The English learners in this
model are provided with the same rigorous education as there counterparts. The native English
speakers who are already performing on level surpass the achievement of their English speaking
peers. And through the cognitive stimulus of schooling in two languages, which leads to
enhanced creativity and analytical thinking, native English speakers who are lagging behind
academically receive the accelerated instruction necessary to close the achievement gap.
(Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P, 2003)
Issues with implementation

The promise of dual language education has spurred a movement in the field of
bilingual education to shift from remedial programs to enrichment forms of bilingual education.

Collazo 5

(Alnais, Iliana and Rodriguez M.A, 2008, p. 1) Even though research demonstrates the
effectiveness of this program, many programs relapse to the remedial forms for many reasons.
One of those reasons is that there are many variations in program design. Some programs use
90/10 which basically means the minority language is used for the majority of the time at the
beginning and then progress to a 50/50 model. Other two-way programs are balanced programs
which means the instructional time is equal (R. Howard, 2001, p. 2). There may be different
outcomes for students whose programs use different amounts of the target language for
instruction (Christina, 1994). Another constraint is the availability of resources, including
qualified teachers, texts, and sources of support (Christina, 1994, p. 19). Socio economic status
also plays an important role in bilingual education. Children who participate are often classified
as being as risk for low academic performance due to poverty. This means that a very large part
of the students in these programs are at-risk. (R. Howard, 2001). Another issue is that parents can
deny services and withdraw their students at any time. Central office also brings in its own
implications. Administrators must be aware of the pitfalls and the need to support teachers at
every step of the way. Otherwise, the influence of standardized testing and the desire for a quick
transition to English overpowers teachers best intentions and ultimately sabotages the program
(Alnais, Iliana and Rodriguez M.A, 2008, p. 316).
Criteria
According to Educational Leadership, Successful Bilingual and Immersion Education
Models/ Programs and Two-Way Bilingual Education: Students learning through Two
Languages, effective two-way dual-language programs have set factors. These factors include at
least 4 years of bilingual instruction, the same core academic curriculum, parent involvement,
quality language arts instruction in both languages, Findings indicate that pedagogical equity,

Collazo 6

qualified bilingual teachers, active parenthome collaboration, and knowledgeable leadership

contributed to the programs success (Alnais, Iliana and Rodriguez M.A, 2008). These factors
form the core criteria of successful language education, particularly dual language education
programs, and serve as a framework for effective implementation and successful outcomes
(Lindholm-Leary, 2001). These criteria include (a) administrative and home support, (b) school
environment, (c) high-quality instructional personnel, (d) professional development, and (e)
instructional design and features (Alnais, Iliana and Rodriguez M.A, 2008)
Summary
In order to be a labeled as a bilingual education program the instruction must be provide
in two languages. There are many models for bilingual education, but there are three that stand
out the most, which are transitional, maintenance, and enrichment. The best model is the
enrichment model which includes the two-way/ dual-language model. However, there are many
implications that arise and can make even the best model ineffective. Some issues are that
programs do not maintain their level of implementation, there are not enough qualified teachers
to teach in these programs, there are many variations as to how the program is implemented,
many of the children serviced are at-risk, and the lack of support from the leaders of the district.
According to Sustaining a Dual Language Immersion Program: Features of Success, if a district
wants to implement an effective two-way/dual-language program it must have pedagogical
equity, qualified bilingual teachers, active parenthome collaboration, and knowledgeable
leadership. (Alnais, Iliana and Rodriguez M.A, 2008). With so much need to understand effective
bilingual education models much research has been completed over this subject. All my
questions have been answered, but I am left pondering with so many more.
Personal Analysis

Collazo 7

With the data provide by National Center for Education Statistics and the fact that the
ESSA had many new guidelines on how states and school districts can better serve students
whose first language isn't English, districts must execute the best bilingual practices and models
in schools. This must be done in order to ensure that the needs of our many English language
students are being met today and in the future. In my hometown district there is such a great
need to commit to a bilingual model and set the effective criteria into practice. We need to think
and plan for the future and not just for the time being. We are too concerned with high stakes
standardized testing and fixing it quickly that we do lose sight about the long term effects that
come with implementing the least fruitful model. The article, Sustaining a Dual Language
Immersion Program: Features of Success warns us about this. It states that the influence of
standardized testing and the desire for a quick transition to English overpowers teachers best
intentions and ultimately sabotages the program (Alnais, Iliana and Rodriguez M.A, 2008). If we
implement the model with the set criteria stated research states that we could close the
performance gaps between English language learners and native English speakers. With the rise
of children needing bilingual services and the national government mandating new guidelines for
empowering our English learners to be successful we must make strides to fix our broken
bilingual programs. As a teacher, I have seen both the transitional model and the enrichment
model implemented in my school district. I also believed that the dual-language students out
performed or made greater gains than those in the transitional model. My research and literature
review have proven this to be accurate. The Instructional infrastructure of dual language
programs provides greatly increased educational productivity because it offers full rather than
partial achievement gap closure at annual costs comparable with existing programs. Transitional
programs for English learners provide only remedial, waters down instruction in playground

Collazo 8

English, virtually guaranteeing that the native English Speakers will outperform English
learners and thus widen the achievement gap over time (Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P, 2003). I
am a firm believer that if we are to have a bilingual program than we must implement a two-way/
dual-language model.

Works Cited
Alnais, Iliana and Rodriguez M.A. (2008). Sustaining a Dual Language Immersion Program:
Features of Success. Journal of Latinos and Education, 305-319.
8

Collazo 9

Center, P. P. (2010). Successful Bilingual and Immersion Education Models/Programs. Honolulu:

Honolulu: Kemehameha Scools, Research and Evaluation Devision.
Christina, D. (1994). Two-Way Bilingual Education: Students Learning through Two languages.
National Center for Research and Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Education, D. o. (2016, September 23). Non-Regulatory Guidance: English Learners and Title III
of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act (ESEA), as amended by theEvery
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
Education, U. D. (2015). English Language Learners in Public Schools. National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Multilingual Matters. Dual Language Education Vol. 28, 59-65.
R. Howard, E. a. (2001). Two-Way Immersion Programs: Features and Statistics. Eric
clearinghouse on languages and linguistics.
Rivera, L. (2002). A Review of the Literature on Bilingual Education. Boston: Gaston Institue
Publications .
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2003). The Multiple Benefits of Dual Language: Dual Language
programs educate both English learners and native English speakers without incurring
extra cost. Educational Leadership, , 61-64.
Bibliography
Alnais, Iliana and Rodriguez M.A. (2008). Sustaining a Dual Language Immersion Program:
Features of Success. Journal of Latinos and Education, 305-319.
9

Collazo 10

Center, P. P. (2010). Successful Bilingual and Immersion Education Models/Programs. Honolulu:

Honolulu: Kemehameha Scools, Research and Evaluation Devision.
Christina, D. (1994). Two-Way Bilingual Education: Students Learning through Two languages.
National Center for Research and Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Education, D. o. (2016, September 23). Non-Regulatory Guidance: English Learners and Title III
of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act (ESEA), as amended by theEvery
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
Education, U. D. (2015). English Language Learners in Public Schools. National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp
Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Multilingual Matters. Dual Language Education Vol. 28, 59-65.
R. Howard, E. a. (2001). Two-Way Immersion Programs: Features and Statistics. Eric
clearinghouse on languages and linguistics.
Rivera, L. (2002). A Review of the Literature on Bilingual Education. Boston: Gaston Institue
Publications .
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2003). The Multiple Benefits of Dual Language: Dual Language
programs educate both English learners and native English speakers without incurring
extra cost. Educational Leadership, , 61-64.
Rossell, Christine. (2009). Does Bilingual Education Work? The Case of Texas. Center for
education policy, Texas Policy foundation, 3-14.

10